Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

The Pleading of Ulterior Motive

The Pleading of Ulterior Motive

By:

Posted November 20, 2019

In the recent decision of Huachangda Canada Holdings Inc. v. Solcz Group Inc. (2019 ONCA 649), the Court of Appeal addressed when a defendant may plead or allege that a plaintiff has an ulterior motive for bringing the claim. In its decision, the Court of Appeal clarified that there is no absolute rule against alleging ulterior motive in a pleading, and pleadings containing allegations of ulterior motive may be permitted certain factual circumstances.

Background

Huachangda involved claims for alleged breaches of representations and warranties arising out of a share purchase agreement. The defendant/appellant, Solcz Group Inc. (“SGI”), an auto parts manufacturer, was the vendor and the plaintiff/respondent, Huachangda Canada Holdings Inc. (“HCH”), was the purchaser.

The Pleadings Issue

At issue in this litigation were two paragraphs of SGI’s Statement of Defence, which alleged that the HCH’s motive in bringing the claim was not “to recoup genuine damages for genuine wrongs”, but rather to obtain an after-the-fact reduction in the purchase price because of alleged financial and liquidity issues. HCH brought a motion to strike the two offending paragraphs under Rule 25.11.

The motion judge found the majority of the two paragraphs were improper on the basis that they plead ulterior motive, which was irrelevant to the causes of action asserted in HCH’s Statement of Claim, and unrelated to causation of the alleged damages or the alleged liquidity problems. The motion judge concluded that the two paragraphs were frivolous and vexatious under Rule 25.11, and struck out portions of them; without leave to amend.

The Appeal

SGI appealed, arguing that there is no general rule that any pleading touching on motive was irredeemably improper. The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, with the Court noting that it did not read the motion judge’s decision as advancing that proposition. Instead, the Court of Appeal clarified that the trial judge had found that the plea of ulterior motive in that case was improper because it was irrelevant. The Court of Appeal considered this issue and found that the motion judge had applied the legal principles correctly, noting that a plea of ulterior motive, improper intent, or malice in bringing an action may be permitted in some circumstances, namely where the plea is an essential part of a cause of action or defence.

The appellants further argued that the improper paragraphs should not have been struck out as they were relevant to the plaintiff’s credibility on a material fact, namely the defendant’s allegation that the plaintiff suffered from “buyer’s remorse.” The Court of Appeal also rejected that argument, noting that credibility is an issue in almost every action and therefore a finding that pleadings of improper motive were relevant to determinations of credibility at large would mean that improper motive could be plead in almost every case, which would be inconsistent with past jurisprudence.

Ultimately, the Court agreed with the motion judge’s determination and dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal noted that, generally, allegations regarding a plaintiff’s personal reasons or motives in bringing an action, however improper, do not in themselves provide a defence to the action and are therefore irrelevant. That being said, the Court of Appeal also confirmed that a pleading of ulterior motive in bringing an action may be permitted in some circumstances, such as where the plea is an essential part of a cause of action or defence, or where it is otherwise relevant.

Takeaways

This decision is noteworthy in that the Court of Appeal confirms that the pleading of allegations of ulterior motive in bringing an action may be permitted in some circumstances. In doing so, the Court of Appeal provided important commentary about when pleadings of ulterior motive are permitted and when they should be struck under Rule 25.11.

This decision will be useful to counsel when determining whether a Statement of Defence should or should not include motive allegations, and assist parties in avoiding unnecessary motions to strike.

This blog post was written by Alexander Bissonnette, a member of the Commercial Litigation team.  He can be reached at 613-369-0358 or at Alexander.Bissonnette@mannlawyers.com.

More Resources

Blog |
Practice Management

By: 

Posted January 30, 2023

“If you don’t know, the thing to do is not to get scared, but to learn.”  Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged It is what it is[...]
Blog |
Family Law

By: 

Posted January 26, 2023

You have made the decision to separate from your partner. Now what? You have a house, a pension, maybe you have children, debts, and an[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law

By: 

Posted January 24, 2023

The Ontario government has moved ahead with changes to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System in support of Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. [...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights

By: 

Posted January 17, 2023

While each of these cases could have its own blog post, we have decided to create a list of important cases for employers to be[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights

By: 

Posted January 10, 2023

Constructive Dismissal is an incredibly important protection for Ontario employees – one that is often used successfully to enforce employment rights. If you ask members[...]
Blog |
Estate Litigation, Wills, Trusts and Estates

By: 

Posted January 4, 2023

Executing powers of attorney is an important component of estate planning and allows individuals to decide who will manage their affairs should they become incapable[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.